My web forums are archived here
http://15419450.weebly.talkiforum.com/
until I can secure the donations to get my website back up. IF you would like to donate, you may do so by clicking on the donate button on this page.
Thank you to all of my viewers and followers.

Monday, August 13, 2012

Reasons NOT to vote for Obama OR Romney

Editor’s
note: This is Part 1 of a three-part series by Chuck Norris on why
American voters should not re-elect President Obama.)

On Feb. 2,
2009, President Barack Obama explained his chances to fix the economy
to host Matt Lauer on NBC’s “Today” show: “I will be held accountable.
I’ve got four years. … If I don’t have this done in three years, then
there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

Here are my Top 10 reasons why I believe President Obama shouldn’t stay a single day beyond his one term in the Oval Office:

10) Obama’s economic actions have failed to lower the U.S. unemployment rate below 8 percent for last 42 record months

Four
years into his presidency, Reuters has reported on Obama’s economic
progress: “Details of the household survey, from which the unemployment
rate is drawn, gave a downbeat assessment of the labor market, with the
share of the population that has a job falling to near cycle lows. In
addition, the labor force participation rate, or the percentage of
Americans who either have a job or are looking for one, fell to 63.7
percent last month from 63.8 percent. That is a sign of low confidence
in the labor market. Data last week showed the economy grew at an annual
pace of 1.5 percent in the second quarter, also far short of the 2.5
percent rate needed to keep the unemployment rate stable.”

9)
The Obama administration’s out-of-control spending has led America to
the economic brink and destroyed our country’s credit rating

In
2010, President Obama spoke out of one side of his mouth when giving
financial advice to the people in New Hampshire: “When times are tough,
you tighten your belts. You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely
pay your mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash in Vegas when you’re
trying to save for college.”

But he then spoke out the other
side of his mouth when he informed the American public that he was
proposing a record-breaking $3.8 trillion budget for 2011, which equates
to spending $7.3 million a minute. (The federal budget was only $1.9
trillion in 2001.)

Tragically, the president expects Americans
to live financially one way (fiscally prudent) and the federal
government to live another (extravagantly wild). Not surprisingly,
Moody’s credit rating agency announced the next day after the
president’s 2011 budget proposal release that his fiscal policies “test
[America's] AAA boundaries” and now push the U.S. government credit
ratings below those of Canada, Germany and even France.

Even the
liberal media predicted that Obama’s spending would “leave a string of
deficits dwarfing any in the nation’s history.” And they were right.

Obama’s reckless spending and fiscal policies have added more to the
national debt than most U.S. presidents combined: Roughly $6 trillion
during his first term in office (making the total debt nearly $16
trillion and, by White House projections alone, $21.3 trillion by the
end of fiscal 2017, $25 trillion in 2021 and $25.9 trillion in 2022.)

In
2007 when I began writing my New York Times best-seller, “Black Belt
Patriotism,” unemployment was less than 5 percent, the annual federal
budget was about $2.9 trillion, the federal deficit was $161 billion and
the national debt was $9 trillion.

Today, unemployment is stuck
at 8.3 percent, the federal budget at $3.8 trillion, the federal
deficit at $1.3 trillion and the national debt is quickly approaching a
staggering $16 trillion.

And to add insult to injury, our
vassalage to other countries deepens as they bankroll increasing amounts
of U.S. debt, with more than one-half of the public debt alone held by
private investors in foreign lands.

A few weeks ago, the
International Business Times reported, “China overtook Japan as the
largest holder of U.S. national debt in 2009. As of December (the most
recent data available), it held about 23.1 percent, or $1.15 trillion,
of all foreign investment in U.S. privately held federal debt, according
to a newly released report by the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO. …
Without monetary policy change, the CBO warned in its 2012 Long-Term
Budget Outlook on June 5, the U.S. federal debt could be twice the size
of the U.S. gross domestic product by 2037.”

Even PolitiFact
confessed, “U.S. total debt is now about 101 percent of GDP. … The
president’s current spending proposal projects the debt will grow to
$21.3 trillion by the end of fiscal 2017 – the last year for which a
two-term Obama would submit a budget. … The White House projected [its]
plan would lead to gross national debts of $25 trillion in 2021 and
$25.9 trillion in 2022.”

America, is that really the burden you want to place upon yourselves and your children?

7)
Obama has not only detrimentally increased the costs of entitlements
but the dependency of citizens upon government subsidies, rather than
empowering the people’s autonomy, responsibility and freedom.

President
Obama has been called the “food stamp president” because more federal
grocery subsidies have been given out under his presidency than most
others combined. A record 44.7 million people – or one in seven
Americans – were on food stamps last year, up 33 percent from fiscal
2009. But far more than that, this president has radically increased
government entitlement expansions. The Heritage Foundation
documented that President Obama’s 2011 budget increased total welfare
spending to $953 billion, a 42 percent increase over welfare spending in
2008. And over the next decade, welfare spending is projected to cost
taxpayers $10.3 trillion.

The Heritage Foundation reported that
not only has the president greatly expanded welfare, “but he has also
eliminated a program that aims to reduce the prevalence of single
motherhood, one of the greatest contributors to poverty in the United
States.”

And the Congressional Budget Office recently released
updated figures that reveal how Obamacare will cost twice as much as the
original price tag first soft-lobbed at the American public, from $900
billion then to $1.76 trillion between now and 2022.

And who is
going to have to pay for all those entitlements? That’s right: you and
your posterity. Trust me. That’s a fact you can take all the way to
yours and your loved ones’ bank accounts.

In
2009, right after taking office, President Obama emphatically stated
“only government” is our savior, and then he supported his socialistic
platform through multiple company and corporate bailouts.

Recently,
Obama reiterated his anti-individual and anti-capitalistic beliefs when
he defined the “somebody” who’s responsible for the success of your
business as being the federal government: “If you’ve got a business, you
didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t
get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so
that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”(Underline
added)

The Wall Street Journal even confessed that the president
is “subordinating to government the individual enterprise and
risk-taking that underlies prosperity.”

(In Part 2 next week, I will continue my Top 10 reasons not to re-elect President Obama.)

An interesting piece from Investors.com
notes that the corporate media darling GOP frontrunner, Mitt Romney,
previously sought advice from White House science czar John P. Holdren
when crafting carbon tax legislation for Massachusetts five years ago.

Under Romney’s leadership, Massachusetts became the first state in the
country to pass legislation to regulate carbon emissions, in 2006. This
is “something the Obama administration is trying to do to all states
through the Environmental Protection Agency’s draconian job-killing
regulations and mandates.” notes the Investors editorial.

Indeed,
while other GOP candidates have expressed doubts about the
effectiveness and legitimacy of carbon taxes, Romney has managed to
attract the praise of Al Gore who stated in June that “While other
Republicans are running from the truth, he is sticking to his guns in
the face of the anti-science wing of the Republican Party.”

Romney’s
position on Global warming is clear, in a June 3rd speech he stated “I
don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the
world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I
read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that
humans contribute to that.”

It is Romney’s association with John P. Holdren that should be most concerning for Americans, however.

In 2005, a memo
from the Massachusetts governor’s office noted that the new policy on
carbon emissions had been in part drawn up with advice and input from
“environmental and policy experts” including “John Holdren, professor of
environmental policy at Harvard University.”

As we have exhaustively documented, Holdren infamously co-wrote a 1977 textbook in which he advocated the formation of a “planetary regime” that would use a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control,
including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via
the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that
would prevent couples from having children.

Holdren is a
Malthusian fanatic in the tradition of the arcane anti-human ideology
that originated amongst British aristocracy in the 19th century… and
both Obama and Romney have looked to him to form their policies.

Climate
change isn’t the only scientific policy area that Romney and Obama
share near identical views on. It is a well established fact that the
Obama healthcare plan, declared unconstitutional by multiple federal
courts, was modelled directly on Romneycare.

M.I.T. economist
John Gruber, the architect of Romneycare in Massachusetts recently
confirmed this, noting ”The White House wanted to lean a lot on what
we’d done in Massachusetts.”

“They really wanted to know how we
can take that same approach we used in Massachusetts and turn that into a
national model.” Gruber added.

At
this point, it appears very likely that Mitt Romney is going to be the
Republican nominee for president in 2012. He has raised far more money
than any of the other candidates, he is leading or is near the lead in
all of the early states, the mainstream media have anointed him as the
frontrunner and a number of recent polls show that most Republicans fully expect
Romney to win the nomination. So will Mitt Romney be the next president
of the United States? Well, he certainly fits the part. He looks like a
president and he speaks very well. But when you look at what he really
stands for that is where things become very troubling. The truth is that
Mitt Romney is either very wrong or very “soft” on every single major
issue. It would be a huge understatement to refer to Mitt Romney as a
RINO (“Republican in name only”). When you closely examine their
positions, there is very, very little difference between Mitt Romney and
Barack Obama. Sure, Romney and Obama will say the “right things” to the
voters during election season, but the reality is that a Romney
administration would be so similar to an Obama administration that you
would hardly know that a change has taken place. What you are about to
read about Mitt Romney should alarm you very much. Mitt Romney would be a
an absolute disaster for this country, and America cannot afford
another disastrous presidency.

The fact that Barack Obama looked
sharp and could give inspiring speeches helped him go a long way back in
2008. Well, it is the same thing with Romney. The guy looks very
presidential and he sounds very presidential. When backed into a corner,
he is extremely slick. He rarely makes mistakes and he is very
polished.

Mitt Romney is a “politician” in the worst sense of the
word. As his past has demonstrated, he will do and say just about
anything in order to get elected. The positions he has taken during this
campaign season have been carefully calculated to help him win both the
Republican nomination and the general election.

That is why so
many call Mitt Romney a “flip-flopper”. Romney will take just about any
political position if he thinks that it will help him. Mitt Romney’s
wife, Ann Romney, once made the following statement about her husband….

“He can argue any side of a question. And sometimes you think he’s really believing his argument, but he’s not.”

So
keep that in mind while reading the following information. Mitt Romney
is trying to claim that he is a “conservative” and that he is looking
out for the American people, but those claims simply are not true.

The following are 16 reasons why Mitt Romney would be a really, really bad president….

17 Reasons Why A Vote For Mitt Romney Is A Vote For The New World Order

The American DreamTuesday, January 3, 2012

Once
again, the Republican Party is being tempted to vote for “the lesser of
two evils”. A lot of Republicans are actually considering voting for
Mitt Romney because they have bought the lie that he has “the best
chance” of defeating Barack Obama in 2012. But just because he is the
Republican candidate that is most like Barack Obama does not mean that
he has the best chance of defeating him. The truth is that no
self-respecting Republican should ever vote for Mitt Romney. A vote for
Mitt Romney is a vote for the New World Order.
Romney comes from the financial establishment, he is being showered
with money from the financial establishment and he supports all of the
goals of the financial establishment. This year, millions upon millions
of dollars are being funneled into Romney’s campaign and into
pro-Romney organizations. The New World Order is literally trying to
buy the 2012 election for their dream candidate. Romney would be the
ultimate Wall Street puppet, and if you cast a vote for Mitt Romney you
are playing right into the hands of the financial elite.If you
do not believe that a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for the New World
Order, just consider Mitt Romney’s positions on the issues….

This is revealed by a quick look at Romney’s top contributors. An Open Secrets page
on top Romney contributors reads like a Who’s Who of Wall Street and
the financial cartel. The top contributor is Goldman Sachs, followed by
Credit Suisse Group, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase,
UBS, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Barclays – major players in the Wall
Street and City of London bankster constellation.

Bain Capital is also on the list. It is a “financial services” and investment firm co-founded by Romney. Bain owns
the establishment media propaganda conglomerate Clear Channel, which
explains why “conservative” talk show hosts like Limbaugh, Hannity and
Levin are supporting Romney, especially with the strong showing of Ron
Paul in the primaries. Both Savage (real name Weiner) and Levin have gone so far as to call Paul a threat to the country.

In December, Mitt refused
to release the identity of his “bundlers,” or people who gather
contributions from many individuals in an organization or community and
give the cash to the campaign.

In other words, the above list is
only the tip of the iceberg. Romney’s lack of transparency about his
bundlers indicates he is getting money from sources that want their
identity concealed.

In November, it was reported that Jimmy Lee, a
veteran Wall Street investment banker, and three other top executives
at JPMorgan Chase & Co hosted a $2,500-per-person reception for
Romney.

“I am committed to doing all that I can to help his
campaign because I also believe he is the strongest challenger to
President Obama,” Lee told Reuters.
Lee said he has known Romney for almost all of his Wall Street career
and that he made one of the first loans to Romney at Bain Capital.

It is not clear why Mr. Lee opposes Obama – his campaign contributors are almost a carbon copy
of Mitt’s. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan (where Lee worked), Citigroup,
Morgan Stanley, USB and many of the same players donated heavily to
Obama’s campaign in 2008.

It should be obvious by now that the
dog and pony show known as the “election cycle” in the United States is a
musical chairs affair with the same gaggle of bankers and transnational
corporations calling the shots.

Prior
to his recent assertion that it is perfectly normal to dispense with
the Fourth Amendment and suspend habeas corpus, Romney said he wasn’t up
to speed on the law and promised to post an analysis on his website,
which he never did.

Romney said you don’t have the “right to join
a group that has challenged America” and then mentioned al-Qaeda, the
terror group that the FBI admits poses little threat to the nation.

The
NDAA, however, is not about indefinitely detaining Muslim cave
dwellers. It’s about disappearing American citizens who oppose the
bankster cartel now in control of the government.

The law is a
“violent and sudden usurpation” of the Constitution of the sort James
Madison warned about. The founders considered habeas corpus the most
fundamental of rights because it insured that the executive branch could
not hold people without cause. It was so important the founders
included it in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution.

Truman
tried to veto the Internal Security Act of 1950 that codified
indefinite detention without trial but he was overturned by
Congress.Truman said it was “the greatest danger to freedom of speech,
press, and assembly” since the Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798 and
represented a “mockery of the Bill of Rights” and was a “long step
toward totalitarianism.”

In the years after Truman’s warning, the
government slowly chipped away at the Fourth Amendment and habeas
corpus as it passed the McCartney-Walter Act, the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(following the Oklahoma false flag), the Patriot Act (following the 9/11
false flag), and has finally repealed the cornerstone of the Bill of
Rights with the passage of the NDAA.

As Sherwood Ross notes, with
the passage of the NDAA, we have returned “to the disgraceful Korematsu
Era, when President Roosevelt ordered the military to round up
law-abiding Japanese-American citizens and stick them in concentration
camps for the duration of World War II.”

World War II, however,
had an end, whereas the bogus war on terrorism is designed to last
forever, as our leaders have stated on a number of occasions.

Romney
has no opinion on the Constitution, Magna Carta, and centuries of
common law. He is an empty vessel filled up with nonsense produced by
the global elite who run the disgusting dog and pony shows that now pass
as elections in the United States.